I find that most people who say "We need a written constitution" really mean "We need Parliament to be constrained, somehow, in what they can do to our rights."

Usually. Though sometimes they mean "we should have a constitutional structure which mirrors my whacko theory of the week", which is…

Personally, I think we do need a written constitution.

Why? What problems would be solved by a unified documentation of our constitution to replace our mishmash of conventions, case law, and statutory instruments? Is something dysfunctional about how things are at present, that having everything written down in one place…

Pick the best person/party on the ballot paper.

It sounds like you would want me to vote for the lesser of two evils (or even 19). You know what? Evil is evil, and I don't want to have any part in it.

... If there isn't one, start one up…

Stil, if we entrench that, then any repeal of s45 would effectively strip maori of any Parliamentary representation. Good luck making that fly.

National has promised to begin a constitutional process to remove the Maori seats in 2014. The most likely mechanism for such a process has always seemed to…

Stil, if we entrench that, then any repeal of s45 would effectively strip maori of any Parliamentary representation. Good luck making that fly.

I agree; while it can technically be circumvented, the fact that it has been passed by a referendum should be seen as binding Parliament. After all, they work for us (swivel on that, Dicey!)

And to follow on from Graeme's point, not only would we still have to appoint people to the Representation Commission to determine the boundaries of non-existent maori seats, we would also have to calculate the general electoral…

Interestingly, we kind of have that situation at present.

Exactly. That's why Clark is being duplitious in citing the repeal of entrenchment legislation for not entrenching the option when there are other unstated reasons

What would happen if the Maori electoral option was entrenched, the Maori seats weren't – and Parliament voted to remove the Maori seats. How much would entrenchment of the Maori option mean then?

Interestingly, we kind of have that situation at present. The membership of the Representation Commission (the body…

So, it doesn't actually mean anything because any (entrenchment) legislation can potentially be repealed

Well, that's what Clark said. But, more importantly What Clark didn't say was it is a meaningless entrenchment for another reason. What would happen if the Maori electoral option was entrenched, the Maori seats weren't -…

Um, no.

I'm aware of that, but I think the answer is still yes. If we'd rejected MMP and stayed with the Electoral Act 1956, you could argue that the entrenchment in s 189 of that act was Parliamentary (and thus suspect on supremacy of Parliament grounds). But we voted…

Section 268 of the Electoral Act is not something from a Parliament past. Its entrenching provisions exists because New Zealanders adopted them in a referendum in 1993.

Um, no. The Electoral Act 1956 included an identical entrenchment provision (s189), which was carried over. The referendum was strictly needed to allow…

Her comment is a recognition that Parliament is supreme, and can undo whatever it so chooses from parliaments past.

Section 268 of the Electoral Act is not something from a Parliament past. Its entrenching provisions exists because New Zealanders adopted them in a referendum in 1993.

As I've said to many people about the s59 repeal, the law is a signal.

Aw, ballocks, Matthew. I do find the spin ingenious in the extreme, but if entrenching the Maori seats is not only "unnecessary" (which is what she was saying 48 hours ago) but "meaningless", Clark could…

So, it doesn't actually mean anything because any legislation can potentially be repealed, but she will support it anyway?

As I've said to many people about the s59 repeal, the law is a signal. It says to society "This is right/wrong/allowed/forbidden". It doesn't stop you doing anything (when was the…

Clark pointed out that she was happy to entrench, but it didn't mean anything, as it wasn't possible to entrench the entrenching clause.

Um, I'd have to give Clark a good dose of the slow clap for that. So, it doesn't actually mean anything because any legislation can potentially be…

In any case, I would support introducing an explicit "No Confidence" option on either or both sides of the ballot paper.

I just ran an election which had both a 'no confidence' and an 'abstain' option on the ballot paper.

It's a terrible idea. Voting is not compulsory, but participation…

Clark pointed out that she was happy to entrench, but it didn't mean anything, as it wasn't possible to entrench the entrenching clause.

Turia said she wasn't sure about that, she'd have to go consult her lawyers.…

Actually only 44% of CA voters voted for prop 13 – that was 65% of the (quite high) 69% turnout at that election – one of the differences between a vote in parliament (or similar) is that turnout tends to be 100% (unless someone's playing silly games)

Actually, last time…

Is there a time limit on how long an MP can hold a seat when they're clearly behaving like idiots when they're not allowed to?

Yes: until the Speaker notices.

Which has so far been interpreted in terms of decades, not minutes.

Is there a time limit on how long an MP can hold a seat when they're not allowed to?

Yes: until the Speaker notices.

I don't see why this would be contentious, except due to the natural desire of opposition to use any hold they can grab against the government.

If it wasn't contentious, then I wonder why it needed to be passed through under urgency. Is there a time limit on how long…

I don't see why this would be contentious, except due to the natural desire of opposition to use any hold they can grab against the government. I don't think there's been any serious suggestion that Duynhoven might be advancing Dutch interests against those of New Zealand?

No, but I'm one…

I don't see why this would be contentious

Re-writing electoral law to obviate the need to hold an election that is legally required to happen is always on the dodgy side.

If I recall correctly National said at the time that they would have supported the law if it only…

like amending the Electoral Act to protect Harry Duynhoven's arse and avoid a by-election nobody was keen to fight

From wikipedia:

His father was from the Netherlands, and Duynhoven had possessed citizenship from birth, but had temporarily lost it due to a change of Netherlands law. According to electoral law,…

I think parliament shouldn't move parliament into urgency for political convenience. Legislation that urgently needs to be passed, OK, but that's a much smaller list.

It depends how urgent the urgency is. Urgency can just be used as a mechanism for extending Parliament's sitting hours (though it would be good…

Take, for example, putting the House into urgency to pass legislation without extensive debate or select committee scrutiny.

Yeah, you won't get any argument from me on that matter Craig. I think parliament shouldn't move parliament into urgency for political convenience. Legislation that urgently needs to be passed, OK, but…

I'm not sure about parliament, but typically you would set aside standing orders in order to do something out-of-the-ordinary but which everyone supports.

Typically, yes. Someone stands up and seeks leave that a standing order be set aside to allow something – leave will often br granted to allow a…

I'm not sure about parliament, but typically you would set aside standing orders in order to do something out-of-the-ordinary but which everyone supports.

But it's a little more than that. Take, for example, putting the House into urgency to pass legislation without extensive debate or select committee scrutiny. Now, I…

Refuses to offer as in "votes against", or refuses to offer as in "refuses to vote for"?

Refuses to vote for. Meaning the biggest of the two left/ right factions becomes a minority govt with the MP abstaining on confidence or supply. Busy now, will read rest of comments later.

what I was really getting at was that Standing Orders as a safeguard (to an already entrenched law or to stop entrenchment without the required number of votes) seems to be relatively easy to get around (and makes the whole idea kind of moot)

I'm not sure about parliament, but…

entrenchment is rarely used in NZ, and arguably underused. MMP isn't entrenched, for example. Neither is the principle of responsible government (Ministers must be MPs), or even the existence of Parliament itself.

Much of what constitutes ordinary parliamentary behaviour in this country isn't legislated at all, even through "ordinary" (as…

That would be a poetic way for chooks and pigs to exact their revenge on us humans.

ROFL!

In the (small party) Leaders debate last night... thats all Tariana was asking for.... support the bill in Parliament....

Turia was also perfectly clear that 'support the bill to select committee, and let it die in the corner of a select committee room' wasn't what she had in mind. Then…

In the (small party) Leaders debate last night... thats…

it is possible that they'll then add a Green abstention to the top of it in exchange for a couple of specific policies (something like the phasing out of battery hens and sow crates).

That would be a poetic way for chooks and pigs to exact their revenge on us…

This doesn't technically rule out abstention, but I can't really imagine them doing that either.

I can ... but perhaps not to allow National to govern. If National forms a coalition which will get the support of the House (maybe they don't even need the support of the Maori Party),…

The latter is effectively what the Greens have done, right? I'm just wondering, because my follow up might be a little more useful if I'm not talking past everyone else.

The Greens have said that they could not form a government with National, or support them on confidence and supply.…

Arguably we can't, because we retain the sovereign right to change our minds, as expressed through parliament.

While we retain the sovereign right to change our minds, Parliament is not the only way to express that, nor necessarily the best vehicle for doing so. And Parliament recognises this, which is…

Refuses to offer as in "votes against", or refuses to offer as in "refuses to vote for"? There's a significant difference there (depending of course on which way the numbers fall).

The latter is effectively what the Greens have done, right? I'm just wondering, because my follow up might be…

But... if no one shifts and there is a hung parliament and the Maori Party refuses to offer confidence and supply

Refuses to offer as in "votes against", or refuses to offer as in "refuses to vote for"? There's a significant difference there (depending of course on which way…

As a one…

its done this way AIUI because there are questions whether entrenchment can really be done in a Westminster system anyway, since no parliament can bind its successor...

Not really. It's been an argument in the past, but it's now pretty much accepted that Parliament can bind its successors – Bills…

To which I say "Parliament might not be able to, but the people can, literally if need be" (it being so much easier to throw MPs into a local sewage pond when they're tied up).

Arguably we can't, because we retain the sovereign right to change our minds, as expressed…

You might want to read s168 a little more closely; it doesn't prescribe the form of the ballot paper at all.

Indeed I might – it's been a while since I have. It makes sense actually – the secret ballot seems a reasonable thing to protect by entrenchment (which seems…

267 Entrenched provisions
(1)

Is why if no bottom lines are shifted, not only are the Maori seats not going to be entrenched, but the Maori Party will not be in coalition after the election. In the unlikelihood that it does shift – and themajor coalition partner is the one…

]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:17:21 +1300 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-standing-orders-101/?p=75742#post75742 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-standing-orders-101/?p=75742#post75742 Paul:

what I was really getting at was that Standing Orders as a safeguard (to an already entrenched law or to stop entrenchment without the required number of votes) seems to be relatively easy to get around (and makes the whole idea kind of moot)

It's relatively easy to get…

]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:50:30 +1300 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-standing-orders-101/?p=75732#post75732 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-standing-orders-101/?p=75732#post75732

having lived under prop13 in California (a bad law that was entrenched at 66% with a 50% vote and has hamstrung the state for a generation)

Proposition 13 passed with 65% support. And the 50% support it needed was because it was voter-approved. The same applies in New Zealand -…

They could move to suspend under SO 4, but that's getting very dodgy (akin to circumventing the curent entrenchment by temporarily repealing it).

That's not getting very dodgy – that would be the start (or conclusion) of a long train of abuses.

If anyone ever moves to suspend standing order…

In general I think that that…

It does pose a serious problem for the Maori Party's bottom line of entrenching the Maori seats. And it would be nice if a journalist asked them how they expect to get around it if National refuses to play ball.

More to the point, given Helen Clark's [[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10539547|"there is no need…

4 Suspension of Standing Orders
(1) A Standing Order or other order of the House may be suspended
in whole or in part on motion with or without notice.
(2) A suspension motion may be moved without notice only if at least
60 members are present when the…